AN ANALYSIS OF USING TECHNOLOGY IN LANGUAGE LEARNING IN THREE FLAGSHIP JOURNALS

Yıl 2020, Sayı: 53, 515 - 532, 31.01.2020

Galip Kartal

Öz

Bu
çalışma, son 10 yılda (2010-2019) üç bilgisayar destekli dil öğretimi odaklı
amiral gemi dergisinde (Language Learning & Technology, CALL ve ReCALL)
yayınlanan teknolojiyle dil öğrenimi araştırmaları üzerinde yapılan çalışmaları
incelemektedir. Bu dergiler Sosyal Bilimler Atıf İndeksinde (SSCI)
indekslenmektedir ve yalnızca teknolojinin dil öğreniminde kullanımı ile ilgili
makaleler yayınlamaktadır. Makale seçimi için belirlenen kriter, çalışmaların
bir dil alanında (örneğin ana dil becerileri, dilbilgisi, kelime bilgisi, kaygı
ve özerklik) belirli bir teknolojik araç kullanmanın yararları üzerine ampirik
kanıtlar sunması gerektiğidir. Yayınların eğilimlerini, metodolojilerini,
teorilerini, araştırma odağını, kullanılan teknolojiyi ve dil öğrenme
faydalarını izlemek için toplam 286 çalışma tespit edilmiş ve içerik analizi
tekniği kullanılmıştır. Bulgular, yaygın olarak kullanılan teknolojilerin derlem
(veriye dayalı öğrenme), bilgisayar aracılı iletişim, sanal dünyalar, blog
oluşturma, wiki'ler, tele-işbirliği ve altyazı olduğunu göstermiştir.
Teknolojiden en çok yararlanan dil alanları; yazma, kelime bilgisi, konuşma,
okuma, özerklik, telaffuz, dinleme, dilbilgisi, pragmatik, kaygı, hata düzeltme
ve motivasyondur. Çalışmalarda teknolojiyi, dille ilgili yardım ve teşvik
sağlayarak dil öğrenimini desteklemek için kullanıldığı bulunmuştur. Sonuçlar,
teknolojiyi dil öğrenimine entegre etmenin bazı sonuçları doğrultusunda
tartışılmaktadır.  

Anahtar Kelimeler

Dil öğrenme, teknoloji, eğilimler, sistematik inceleme

AN ANALYSIS OF USING TECHNOLOGY IN LANGUAGE LEARNING IN THREE FLAGSHIP JOURNALS

Öz

This study probes into the research studies on language learning with
technology published in three CALL-focused flagship journals (Language Learning
& Technology, CALL, and ReCALL) in the last 10 years (2010-2019). These
journals are indexed in the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) and they
solely publish articles on the use of technology in language learning. The
established criterion for article selection is that the studies should provide
empirical evidence on the benefits of using a specific technological tool on a
language area (e.g. main language skills, grammar, vocabulary, anxiety, and
autonomy). A total of 286 studies were identified and the content analysis
technique was used to track the publications’ trends, methodologies, theories,
research focus, the technology used, and language learning benefits. The findings
showed that the commonly used technologies were corpus (data-driven learning),
computer-mediated communication (CMC), virtual worlds, blogging, wikis,
telecollaboration, and captioning. The language areas that mostly benefited
from technology were writing, vocabulary, speaking, reading, autonomy,
pronunciation, listening, grammar, pragmatics, anxiety, error correction, and
motivation. The studies utilized technology mainly to support language learning
by providing language-related assistance and encouragement.  The results are discussed in line with some
implications for integrating technology into language learning.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Language learning, technology, trends, systematic review

Kaynakça

• Akayoğlu, S. (2019). Theoretical frameworks used in CALL studıes: A systematic review. Teaching English with Technology, 19(4), 104-118.
• Beatty, K. (2013). Teaching and researching computer-assisted language learning. New York, USA: Routledge.
• Benson, P. (2001).Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. London: Longman.
• Blake, R. (2016). Technology and the four skills. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 129–142.
• Burston, J. (2013). Mobile-assisted language learning: A selected annotated bibliography of implementation studies 1994–2012. Language Learning & Technology, 17(3), 157–224.
• Cárdenas-Claros, M. S., & Gruba, P. A. (2014). Listeners’ interactions with help options in CALL.Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(3), 228–245.
• Chapelle, C. A. (2005). Interactonst SLA theory n CALL research. In J. L. Egbert & G. M. Petre (Eds.), CALL Research Perspect ves (pp. 53-64). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Chun, D., Kern, R., & Smith, B. (2016). Technology in language use, language teaching, and language learning. Modern Language Journal, 100( Supplement 2016), 64– 80.
• Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300-331.
• Egbert, J. L. (2005). Conducting research on CALL. In J. L. Egbert & G. M. Petrie (Eds.), CALL research perspectives (pp. 3–8). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Friðriksdóttir, K. (2018) The impact of different modalities on student retention and overall engagement patterns in open online courses, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(1-2), 53-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1381129
• Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S. (2014) Technologies for foreign language learning: a review of technology types and their effectiveness, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 70-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2012.700315
• Hallinger, P. (2013). A conceptual framework for systematic reviews of research in educational leadership and management. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(2), 126-149.
• Hockly, N. (2013). Mobile learning. ELT Journal, 67, 80-84.
• Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
• Hubbard, P. & Levy, M. (2016). Theory in computer-assisted language learning research and practice. In F. Farr & L. Murray (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Language Learning and Technology (pp. 24-38). Abingdon,Oxon, United Kingdom: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315657899
• Kern, R. G. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 183– 210.
• Kessler, G. (2010). When they talk about CALL: Discourse in a required CALL class? CALICO Journal, 27(2), 376–392.
• Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
• Liu, M. Navarrete, C. C., Maradiegue, E. & Wivagg, J. (2014). Mobile learning and English language learners: A case study of using iPod touch as a teaching and learning tool. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 25(3), 373-403.
• Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centred curriculum : A study in second language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Park, K., & Kinginger, C. (2010). Writing/thinking in real time: Digital video and corpusquery analysis. Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 31-50.
• Perraton, H. (2000). Rethinking the research agenda. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1, 10-19. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v1i1.5
• Reinders, H., & White, C. (2016). 20 years of autonomy and technology: How far have we come and where to next? Language Learning and Technology, 20(2), 143–154.
• Richert, A. (1991). Case methods and teacher education: Using cases to teach teacher reflection. In B. R. Tabachnich & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Issues and practices in inquiry-oriented teacher education (pp. 130-150). London: Falmer.
• Shadiev, R., Hwang, W.Y., & Huang, Y. M. (2017). Review of research on mobile language learning in authentic environments. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(3–4), 284–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1308383
• Son, J. B. (2018). Technology in English as a foreign language (EFL) teaching. In J. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–7). Malden, MA: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0448
• Tellez, K., & Waxman, H. (2006). Preparing quality educators for English language learners: Research, policies & practices. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2007). Audience, authorship, and artefact: the emergent semiotics of Web 2.0. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 1–23.
• Zeng, S. (2015). English Learning with Web 2.0: An investigation into Chinese undergraduates’ technology (non)-use and perspectives. (Unpublished DoctoralDissertation), London: UCL Institute of Education.